Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-3-94 Addendum~~ THE CO !!~~ ~ ~ XXX~7~ REPORT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File # ~~ ~ Res. # CPR -(~77' ~ `~ . Date: NOVEMBER 21, 1994 ADDENDUM NO. 1 By-Law # 9~ /~~ Report #:~~,,.~5-g.4 File#: n ^~~06 Subject: pRTITION FROM RESIDENTS OF GLENABBRY DRIVE, COURTICE Recommendations:. it is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. .THAT Report Addendum No. 1 to WD-3-94 be received; 2. THAT .Council approve the placing of all-way stops at the intersections of Glenabbey Drive and Auburn Lane, Bruntsfield Street and Pinetree Court on a one year trial basis; 3. TBAT Council pass the proposed By-law attached to Addendum No. 1 to WD-3-94 to implement the recommendation; and 4. THAT a copy of Addendum No. 1 to WD-3-94 be forwarded to Mr. John Stezik and that he be advised of Council's decision. REPORT 1.0 ATTACH]i48NTS No. 1: Rey Map Showing Location of Proposed All-way Stops No. 2: Key Map Showing Proposed Future Road Network No. 3: Letter received February 17, 1994, from Durham Region Works Department No. 4: Report from Totten Sims Hubicki No. 5: Propose d By-law Amending Traffic By-law 91-58 - 149 ~.oEF~~a.~.~,E REPORT NO. ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO WD-3-94 PAGE 2 No. 6: Proposed Signing of the Intersection of Bloor Street and Townline Road South 2.0 BACRGRODND 2.1 Report to General Purpose and Administration Committee On January 10, 1994, Council approved the following recommendation: "THAT a copy of Report WD-3-94 be forwarded to Mr. John Stezik and the Durham Regional Police; and THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to discuss the traffic concerns with Mr. John Stezik and the Durham Regional Police to determine their willingness to participate in a Neighbourhood Speed Watch Program and other options regarding traffic on Glenabbey Drive and that a three-way stop be .implemented at the intersection of Glenabbey Drive and. Robert Adams Drive FORTHWITH." 2.2 Meeting with Residents On January 12, 1994, a meeting was held with the residents of Glenabbey Drive at Mother Teresa School on Glenabbey Drive.: The following were present: Inspector Jim Adams Larry Hannah Mary Novak Walter Evans Ron Baker Frank Wu Durham Regional Police, 16th Division Councillor Councillor. Director of Public Works Traffic Coordinator Director of Planning & Development ~u~Q REPORT NO. ADDENDi1M NO. 1 TO WD-3-94 PAGE 3 2.3 Agreed to Look at Vazious Ideas At the meeting held on January 12, 1994, it was agreed that we would examine various ideas and have another meeting with the' residents. 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 3.1 Traffic Calming Devices Traffic calming devices were placed on Glenabbey Drive on February 18,.1994, to see if they would have any impact on slowing down the traffic. There was only a marginal reduction in the speed of traffic. Because of this and because several calls were received from residents in the area objecting to the traffic calming devices, they were removed on March 30, 1994. 3.2 Change Signing It was suggested that the signing of the intersection of Bloor Street and Townline Road South be changed as illustrated on Attachment No. 6. This suggestion was referred to Durham Region Works Department who have jurisdiction on Bloor Street. In correspondence received February 17, 1994 (Attachment No. 3J, we were advised that it is illegal to install stop and yield control signs on the same intersection. 3.3 Reconstruct Prestonvale Road and Bloor Street It was suggested that Prestonvale Road be reconstructed from Glenabbey Drive to Bloor Street and that Bloor Street be improved from Prestonvale Road to Townline Road South.: The reconstruction of Prestonvale Road is in the 1999 Forecast. As development occurs in the area, Bloor Street will be realigned as illustrated on Attachment No. 1. The .. ~U2~ REPORT NO. ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO WD-3-94 PAGE 4 timing of both projects will depend on the timing. of development in the area. 3.4 Realignment of Glenabbev Drive Bast of Prestonvale Road The residents suggested that, in order to reduce the amount of traffic which will use Glenabbey Drive as a result of more development which is planned for the area, the alignment of Glenabbey Drive be changed. In response to the suggestion, the alignment. of Glenabbey Drive has been changed, as illustrated on Attachment No. 1, in the draft of the-new Official Plan. 3.5 Review by Consultant Doug Allingham, Senior Vice-President, Transportation, Totten. Sims Hubicki & Associates, who has extensive experience in neighbourhood traffic studies and controls, was asked to examine the traffic on Glenabbey Drive and prepare a letter report on his assessment 'of the problem and make recommendations to alleviate the concerns of the residents (Attachment No. 4). 3.6 Meeting Held on November 10. 1994 3.6.1 Ten (10) copies of Mr. Allingham's report were given to Johs Stezik for .his review with the residents of Glenabbey Drive. A meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 10,.1994, at Mother Teresa School on Glenabbey Drive with the following presents Larry.. Hannah Regional Councillor Mary Novak Local Councillor Walter Evans Director of Public Works Ron Baker Traffic Coordinator 1U2 REPORT NO. ADDBMDUM NO. 1 TO WD-3-94 PAGE 5 Doug Allingham Senior Vice-President, Transportation, Totten Sims Hubicki & Associates Inspector Jim Adams Durham Regional Police Peter Naumienko Durham Regional Police John Stezik and 10 other residents of Glenabbey Drive The purpose of the meeting was to review the letter report with the residents to see if we could arrive at a consensus on a solution to the residents' concerns. 3.6.2 Police $aforcement of Maximum Speed Inspector Jim Adams advised .that Durham Regional Police provided 27 hours of enforcement of the maximum speed on Glenabbey Drive during the months of September and October and that they are not-.able to provide more than .about 13 hours per month in the future. This amount of enforcement does not seem to have alleviated the. residents' concerns. 3.6.3 Barricades on Glenabbey One resident requested that we place a "breakaway barrier" on Glenabbey Drive. He was advised that we are not prepared to recommend such a device. 3.6.4 Lower Maximum Sneed in Front of Mother Teresa School One resident, who is on the .Metro Toronto Police Force, suggested that the maximum speed in front of Mother Teresa School be reduced from 50 km/hr to 40 km/hr. He stated that this is happening more and more in Metro Toronto and that he believes that this will become the accepted practice in the .not too distant future. 1023 RBPORT NO. ADDENDIIM NO. 1 TO WD-3-94 PAGE 6 Another .resident suggested that rather than reduce the maximum speed to 40 km/hr in front of the school only, that it be reduced to 40 ]cm/hr for the entire length of Glenabbey Drive. 3.6.5 Communit~Traffic Speed Watch The suggestion of a "Community Traffic Speed Watch" in which the residents take down the licence plate numbers for those cars which they believe are speeding and submit them to the Police was discussed. Over time it is usually found that some plate numbers are reported several times, at which time the police discuss the matter with the owner of the plates. 3.6.6 Result of Discussions After having discussed the above items and others, the residents kept coming back to their original request for all-way stops at the other three intersections on Glenabbey Drive. More than one resident pointed out that part of the problem is that Glenabbey Drive tends to .act as an arterial road rather than a collector road because the road systems for the area, in particular the reconstruction of Prestonvale Road from Glenabbey Drive to Bloor Street and Bloor Street on a new alignment, from Townline Road South to Prestonvale Road are not in place. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMlIBNDATIONS From the above, it was concluded at the meeting that the residents still feel that the only solution to their problem is to make all the intersections on Glenabbey Drive all-way stops.. - 1024 REPORT NO. ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO WD-3-94 PAGE 7 4.1 The residents were advised that we would be recommending to Council that, even though the other three (3) intersections, as illustrated on Attachment No. 1, do not meet the warrants from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for all-way stops, we would recommend to Council that all-way stops be put in place at the intersection of Glenabbey Drive and Auburn Lane, Bruntsfield Street and Turnberry Crescent, on a trial basis and that the effect of these additional all-way stops would be monitored. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, i~ a Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. W. B. Stockwell Director of Public Works Chief Administrative Officer RDB*WAS*ph November 15, 1994 Attachments pc: John Stezik 125 Glenabbey. Drive Courtice, Ontario L1E 2B7 - 1025 0~ ° T LL- A 0 b 3 D AL AL - S INTERSE S U E B E E B ING PROP E a ~ E ~ ~ ° 0 a d c d PRO OSED COLLECT ROA (AS PER MUNICI ALITY'S 199 OFFICIAL PLAN o R ERT ADAMS DRIVE EXT NSION 0 ~~ BLOOR STREET FUTU E E TENSION a 0 s a C: ATTACH DARL SWCOURT DRAWN BY: JM DATE: NOV. 1994 ATTACHMENT ND. 1 ADDENDUM N0. 1 TO WD-3-94 d T O ~' -O ~ U M p n o N M •U °~~ :~ o U :~ m^ O Of Nrn C ~ O ~ d rn N rn (n T•- I11 T~ o O '~ O ~.-~`~... _ m o ~ ~ ~~TM d Q a~TM ~.n- O C O Q : ~.~. O V ~ K. O ~ .V 2 ¢ N y 0) ~ N ~ Ot O O V 'C d ~ d' ~ w N ~ O O _ 4J U C C ~ ti N .X O N" w U a0 ~ O N w •X O H O aU o-O w ~ ~ 2 ~ a p~ 0 ~ ~ a _ ~ O N w a_U o-O O ~ o ~ E--+ ~ O z ~ ~ ~ I - ~ a ~ i a ~ ~ z _ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ d 6 --- pDD~f i..... ADO°I1Dy _ ~ Pooa ~DOO UDH ' ' ~ • r I , ._~ • ~ ~ `•~ ~ I • • I ' ' ti~ Poo € aaq~no~ `' 1 • • ~ / ~ ~ • o ; ~ ~ ~ • •~ / ; 1 ' • ~ . ........... ... .................. ............... . ............ : „ , ,,, PDO21 I 1 ~ slln~l ,~ ................... .. ....................................... . ~ ( Pooa ~ I •. + QI~~l O ~ N Q~ O L ~ ~ • ~ ~ I I O N • • p O I ~ ~ L • ~ 1 ' ~O ~ ~ N ' to Q ~ 2 ~ + \ ~ ~o ~ `7 ~ o ~ i ~/ `~J Sandringham 1 0 ; ~• ~ O ~o+ y ,` d Z ~ a6~oa~ : - _ pooa alonuo + \ ~ ~sa~d • pooa Fa~opl anu ~ •' •. •Os o + ~ i / p~ai}~a}ua~ ~ o, ~ ' ~ ~~ • ar~~ x 1 te : a ' ' pooa aoa~D~;` ~ in: I O I ~ o: i. 1 UJ ~ p. m; ': I ~~~~ DURHAM REGION The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department Box 623 705 Consumers Dr. Whitby, Ontario Canada Lt N 6A3 (905)668-7721 Fax (905) 668-2051 V.A SILGAI LIS, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works Please quote our rei: PRA-RR22-SIN ~,1~2..,_____ I ~~_ ,_' - 9FG .v N~ The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Attn: Mr. Ron Baker. Works Department Dear Sir: Fr.~ i 7 -_ . ,,^-U6 ':",4i~.' eta iiEP'. Re: Traffic Routing, South-West Courtice In reply to your fax containing a resident's proposal for discouraging Prestonville Road traffic from using Glen Abbey Road as an access to Bloor Street, Oshawa, the following comments are offered. It is illegal to install stop and yield control signs on the same intersection. 2. Traffic volumes on Townline Road at Bloor Street, Oshawa and Regional Road 22 do not warrant the widening of this road to incorporate left turn lanes. 3. The. elementary school on Glen Abbey Road will generate "through" traffic by parents dropping off/picking up students on their way to/from work. 4. Traffic, generated from east and north of Glenabbey Road, off of Prestonville Road and destined for south Oshawa or westbound Highway No. 401 would logically use Glenabbey Road instead of travelling south to Regional Road 22 and backtrack to Bloor Street, Oshawa. Glenabbey Road, being the only access route to the elementary school, receives high priority winter maintenance and therefore entices through traffic whereby Regional Road 22 does not have as good a surface, no curbs, and the sight distance from Prestonville Road to the east is hampered due to the horizontal alignment. It was noted that all-way stop sign controls were recently installed at the tee intersection of Glenabbey Road and Robert Adams Drive. It is not known if these controls were installed under the conditions outlined in Division 2 - Regulatory Section of the M.U.T.C.D. or as a means of deterring the movement of through traffic. ATTACHMENT N0. 3 ,~.~, ADDENDUM N0. 1 TO WD-3-94 _, "~~' 1028 /...2 This paper contains recycled material. - 2 - It has been brought to our attention that enforcement on Glenabbey Road far outweighs the presence of enforcement in other subdivisions and roads within the Region. If this enforcement is operating on "zero clearance" it will act as a deterrent to through traffic. As you are aware, development of the Southwest Courtice Neighbourhood will implement the easterly extension of Bloor Street to Prestonvale Road on its .northerly alignment. We expect these improvements to provide long term relief to Glen Abbey Road traffic patterns. Yours truly ~~f- ~ ~~ A. Lindsay Traffic Operations AEL/jh cc: M.S. Centers, P.Eng., Supervisor Transportation Engineering and Development iU27 300 WATER STREET, WHITBY, ONTARIO CANADA L1N 9J2 totten sims hubicki associates September 19, 1994 Mr. W. Evans Director of Public Works Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 RE: Traffic Issues on Glensbbey Drive - Courtice Municipality of Clarington Dear Mr. Evans: (905) 668.9363 FAX (905) 668-0221 The following letter report is in response to your recent request for me to review traffic issues on Gleaabbey Drive, and to suggest potential solutions to these issues. . fr Preparing my response to you, I have undestalcen the following. - • A review of correspondence betwexn the Municipality and local residents; • A review of data collected by the Durham Regional Police and the Municipality of Clarington including spot speed studies, time and motion studies, traffic courts, etc.; • Met with Municipality staff to review and confirm the issues; • Met with staff from the Durham Regional Police; and • Held meetings with representatives from ocher municipalities in the Region and also in the Greater Toronto Area to discuss trafSc calming issues and to ensure consistarcy with positions and solutions implemented in other locales. Prior to being requested to undertake this Study, during the Winter of 1993/1994 I had an opportunity to observe, first hand, the various traffic calming techniques tested by the Municipality on Glenabbey Drive. As we have previously discussed, I have extensive experience in the area of neighbourhood traffic studies, now commarily }sown as traffic calming, which can be practically applied to the resolution of traffic problems on Glenabbey Drive in Courtice. As you are aware, I have successfully undertaken traffic calming and neighbourhood traffic studies or reviews in the following municipalities: • The City of Mississauga; • The Borough of East York; • The Municipality of Whitby; • The City of Regina; • The City of Edmonton; ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS • The Municipality of Richmond Hill; • The Municipality of Ajax; • The City of Calgary (Over 25 Separate Studies); and The City of Moose Jaw. 1 u .~ ~~ ATTACHMENT NO, 4 ADDENDUM NOJ 1 TO WD-3-94 -2- I have also authored a number of papers and reports on neighbourhood traffic control including several documents currently utilized as reference material by municipalities across Canada: • Methods to Reduce the Speed and Volume of Traffic on Residential Roadways (City of Calgary 1981); • Survey of Calgary Residents Perceptions Towards Residential Traffic, Mazch 1985; and • Residential Traffic Volume Survey and Average Actual Traffic Volumes, July 1985, City of Calgary; • Consumer Response to Street Chazacteristics, 1985. Most recently, I have prepared reports for a number of municipalities establishing public consultative practices relating to the resolution of speeding and traffic volume problems in residential areas. As a former municipal traffic engineer and transportation planner, I am also familiar with the pros and cons of using stop sign control, reduced speed limits and other "low cost" passive and active control measures to address speeding problems on residential collector roadways. AND PROBLEM DEFINITION Over the last year, Municipality of Clarington staff, at the request of local residents on Glenabbey Drive, have been working closely with Durham Regional Police to resolve traffic issues relating to excessive volumes and speeding on the roadway. Glenabbey Drive, classified as a minor arterial roadway in the Durham Official Plan, runs in an east-west direction connecting Prestonvale Road (arterial) to Municipalityline Road (arterial). The Draft Clarington Official Plan, currently in circulation, recommends that Glenabbey Drive be designated as a collector roadway and it is my belief, based upon a review of the design and function of the roadway, that it operates as a major collector. Please note that there is little or no difference. between a major collector and minor arterial roadway in terms of function and volume. In a traditional residential area, as found in Clarington, the subdivision is designed azound a hierarchical system of roadways. Withur the hierarchy, local roadways are designed to provide for the movement of local traffic from abutting properties to collector, major collector or arterial roads. Collector roads generally carry traffic between arterials and local streets and compliment the arterial network by accommodating local transit service and other community functions. Major collectors aze intended to carry moderate to heavy traffic volumes to and from major traffic generators or between neighbourhoods. >n the design of the subdivision served by Glenabbey Drive, it appears that basic engineering and design principles have been used which recognize ]ocal circulation, access requirements and the appropriate roadway hierarchy. As a general wmment, and as noted above, collector and major collector streets are intended to serve traffic moving between connecting local streets and peripheral major streets; therefore, traffic volumes and slightly higher speeds (than found on local residential streets) are to be expected. It is fundamental to note that street classification alone or a change in classification will not result in reduced volumes or speeds. Gienabbey Drive is currently carrying in the area of 4,000-4,500 vehicles per day (Average Weekday Traffic or AWT). An acceptable level of traffic for a collector or major collector roadway within a residential area ranges from 2,000 to 1031 -3- 10,000 vehicles per day. Volume standards or thresholds ojgood environment for collector roadways have been established through surveys of other communities across Canada and North America. The nature of Glenabbey Drive relative to building setbacks, pavement width and right-of-way width is consistent with standards employed in municipalities across the Region and across Canada for collector standard roadways. There is nothing about the physical nature of the roadway or the adjacent properties which would suggest the roadway should carry volumes less than the range suggested above. Local area residents from the east and the north use Glenabbey Drive to access south Oshawa and Highway 401. This route, for several reasons, is more convenient than Prestonvale Road, Regional Road 22, Municipalityline Road and Bloor Street. The land use on Glenabbey Drive is generally characterised by single family dwellings fronting on the roadway. Mother Theresa School (a junior school) is located on the north side of Glenabbey Drive approximately midway between Prestonvale Road and Municipalityline Road. It is my understanding that the concerns expressed by the local residents relate to excessive speed and volume. With respect to the issue of overall volume, the prevailing level is below that which could reasonably be expected on a major collector roadway. The volume is significantly less than the physical capacity of the roadway. With respect to vehicle speeds, radar studies conducted by Municipality staff and Durham Region Police and personal observations indicate that conditions on this roadway are similar to conditions on many other collector roadways in Clarington. It appears from the data collected by the Municipality, that the average speeds on this roadway aze slightly lower than the existing posted speed limit; however, there is a small component of the motorists that aze significantly excceding the speed limit and who aze causing concern for the local residents. For example, 7°/r10% of the daily volume is exceeding 60 kph on the roadway - 10 kph in excess of the posted speed unit. Although the number of motorists significantly exceeding the speed limit is low, it is considered that this situation should be of concern to the municipality and Durham Region Police. The problem however, does not warrant the implementation of major physical, active traffic control measures. II is also noteworthy that my research over the last 15 yeazs has revealed that most people cannot accurately judge the speed of passing vehicles -most people tend to overestimate vehicle speeds. This should betaken into account when reviewing the residents' concerns relative to traffic on this street. My experience, and the experience of other traffic professionals, clearly indicates that the speed of vehicles is of greater concern than the volume and if the speeding issues can be rectified, the concerns regarding traffic and traffic safety will generally be alleviated. For your information, the Municipality of Whitby is currently experiencing similar speeding related problems on a number of town collector roadways and through their research and experimentation, staff have come to similar wnclusions; that is, if the few serious offenders could be addressed, then other traffic related issues may be resolved at the same time. In considering the traffic situation on Glenabbey Drive, it is fundamental to note that many oJthe speeders are local Caurtice residents and in jact, residents of the immediate area. This is based upon my own daily observations which have been confirmed through discussions with the Durham Region Police. 1u32 4- I have discussed the above conclusions with representatives of the Durham Regional Police Services who agree with my assessment of the problem. Over the Winter of 1993!1994, the Municipality of Clarington experimented with traffic calming measures on Glenabbey Wive. These temporary measures were intended to slow motorists by creating artificial chicanes or diverters. Based upon personal observation, discussions with the local residents and Durltam Regional Police staff, it appears that these devices have had limited success. Indeed personal observations appeaz to indicate that some motorists saw the controls as a challenge and attempted to see how fast they could traverse the devices. The devices also created a problem for snow removal and general winter maintenance activities. Some residents have also expressed concern about effectiveness of the control measures with respect to reducing vehicle speeds, their appearance and the general impact on adjacent properly values. EVALUATIONlANALYSIS The problems experienced by residents on Glenabbey Drive, although real, are by no means unique and limited to this roadway, nor aro they moro serious than on other collector roadways in the municipality. Thi<. a problem experienced to date by residents on marry collector roadways in municipalities across Canada and the U.S. Despite attempts by other municipalities to rectify this problem through physical changes to the local roadway environment (i.e. traffic calming, reduced pavement width, stop signs, speed bumps, etc.), the problem is not specifically a roadway design, speed limit or subdivision design issue; although some changes to subdivision design standards (i.e. pavement width) may reduce, but.not eliminate future speeding concerns in new communities. The problem with speeding is that, unfortunately, it is a social problem. Some of the speeders are unaware of what they are doing and others will generally speed under any circumstance if they feel there is little chance of apprehension, identification or penalty. Most municipalities have had limited success with active physical changes either to the street experiencing the speeding problems or to the roadway network in the community. A few municipalities have had some success with community based passive schemes whereby the residents play a major role in infornung other residents of their wncems or they assist the Police in identifying regulaz offenders. As noted above, communities across Canada, the U.S., and azound the world have been attempting to address the same problems relating to speeding for the last two decades. In general most locales have achieved minimal success in this area. As a general comment, it appears that greater success in dealing with speeding has been achieved on the European scene whece various types of innovative 1033 -5- active traffic calming measwes have been employed; however, both motorists and residents in most Ewopean nations have a completely different set of values when it wines to the role of the auto in the wmmunity. In addition, because of the physical wnstraints on existing roadways and subdivisions in Ewope, the implementation of traffic calming techniques is less costly, more readily implementable and they also receive a higher degree of acceptance by the local residents. Ewopeans and other nations outside North America also have a different attitude towazds liability - an issue that has resulted in many North American municipalities rejecting marry traffic calming techniques. Although it is true that some Norih American wmmunities have successfully implemented active traffic calming programs, these progams are not widespread and have met with limited success in terms of overall wmmunity acceptability, and vest of implementation. Few of the schemes currently in place across North America have been implemented without some degree of wntroversy and disageement amongst the local residents. Many programs have resulted in long term problems between residents in the same community. Implementing traffic wntrol schemes can be expensive- Some calming schemes in final form, can vest several hundred thousand dollars -not including the increased cost associated with municipal staff time and maintenance vests (The City of Toronto is experimenting with traffic calming measwes on a portion of a single roadway. The vest of this experiment is in the order of $750,000.00). Implementing a traffic wntrol scheme in one wmmunity will lead to requests from other wmmunities experiencing the same problems resulting in potential significant fuumcial wmmitments. One issue that has yet to be studied in North America is the impact of traffic control schemes on adjacait property values. There have been some traffic wntrol techniques which have been suggested by the local residents as a way to reduce the speed and volume on Glenabbey Drive. One suggestion is to close Glenabbey Drive at Prestonvale Road. This, in my opinion, is not a practical solution as it may only resolve problems for residents on Glenabbey Drive between Robert Adams Drive and Prestonvale Road. Such a move may exacerbate problems on Robert Adams Drive and Prestonvale Road. There would also be an impact on emergency vehicle service to the area. Some residents also feel that stop signs will reduce speed limits and that they represent the panacea for all traffic problems on Glenabbey Drive. Significant practical experience with both stop sign wntrol and speed limit signing clearly indicates that these techniques or wntrols will be ineffective without regular Police enforcement. I know you are aware of the argument used by transportation professionals that stop signs often increase the speed of vehicles between these devices. Although I agce with this position as a result of my own personal survey work, I have also experienced situations where residents (except those who live on the wmers adjacent to the stop signs), who are generally unable to acewately assess the speed of vehicles in the fast place, feel that such devices have been very effective. My wncems relate more spceifically to the fact that such devices often give local residents and, more importantly, local children, a false sense of security. It has been proven that motorists generally develop a lower level of respect for the stop sign as a result of having to travel through many umvarranted installations. This issue and the false sense of security associated with these devices, wncerns me more than the fact that pwple will tend to speed between the installations. 1 i13 4 -6- With respect to speed limit signing, again, it is my personal experience that a reduced speed limit (i.e. 40 kph) on this roadway will not result in a reduction in average speed or the munber of motorists who will exceed the speed limit. People will drive at.a speed they feel comfortable at, no matter what the speed limit is unless there is regular enforcement. A further suggestion aimed at resolving issues on Glenabbey Drive is to extend Bloor Strcet east of Municipalityline Road. The Draft Clarington Official Plan shows Bloor Street extending east of Municipalityline Road but proceeding in asouth-easterly direction eventually connecting to existing Bloor Street west of Prestonvale Road. As a result of the proposed location of this facility, the roadway will likely not provide significant relief to Glenabbey Road. Table 1 provides a summary of active and passive traffic control devices utilized by other municipalities across Canada and the U.S. to resolve speed and volume problems on residential and collector roadways. I have had personal experience with most of the devices listed in Table 1. As can be noted from this Table, the majority of the active techniques have limited affect on vehicle speeds and those that do, result in other undesirable community impacts. In the past, and inmost municipalities, the trafLc engineers typical response to a residential speeding complaint has been an explanation as to why the various specific remedies requested (see Table 1) are not good ideas (an explanation that generally falls on deaf ears) followed by a referral of the complaint to the Police for enforcement measures. The Police, busy with higher priority problems and limited by budget constraints, will respond with a token effort at enforcement that has little impact. The situation then returns to normal leaving citizens, works stall' and the Police with a sense of frustration over a complaint not adequately addressed. I believe that speeding issues in residential areas need to be addressed in a more positive manner. Amore positive approach could include the following elements and must involve the local residents accepting some responsibility for the solution: • Selective and regular Police enforcement; Local community marketing efforts; • Implementation of a Neighbourhood Traffic or Speed Watch Program; and • An Education Program focusing on the local school children. CONCLUSIONS As a result of my work relating to the problems on Glenabbey Drive, I have concluded the following: 1. The overall volume of traffic on Glenabbey Drive should not be considered an issue i.e. problem. Volumes on this roadway are well within the guidelines established for collector roadways. 2. Although the overall average speed on this roadway is below the posted speed limit, I do consider that there is a speeding problem on Glenabbey Drive as a result of a small number ojmotorists significantly exceeding the posted speed limit. These motorists aze creating a safety problem resulting in a high level of discomfort for local residents. The current speed limit on Glenabbey Drive (50 kph) is appropriate and should not be reduced. 1035 POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ISSUE VS APPLICATION Excessive MEASURE OR TECHNIQUE vecfuck n1fO1~' 'a" IMcrsec4on Speeds Traffic Safety Safety Volumes OVERALL RECOMMENDATION ' Stop Signs O O t, O • t. • t. O t. Traffic Signals ' O ~ ~, O • • • Speed Limit Signs O O O O O Turn Prohibitions O m O• y, O• z, O O OnrWay Streets O • O O O Access Regulation • • ~ O O Truck Restrictions O O ~ D • On Street Parking Restrictions • O Q ~ O School Zone Signs Q O 8 O • & Flashing Beacotu O O • O • Information Signing O D ~ O O Crosswalk Pavement Markings O O Q O p --Lane Reductions (Painted) t~ Q Q O O Speed Humps • • O O O Speed Bumps O O ~ O O Chokers/Road Narrowings • O ~ O O Traffic Circles/Buttons O O O O O Medlars Bamers O O O O O Diverters O O O O O Forced Turn Channeliution O O O O O Cul-de-Sacs • • • • Breakaway Barriers • • • • • lDtangeable Speed Zones O O O O O Community Marketing O O O O • Comprehensive Programs O • • • • Arteriallmprovements O • • • • LEGENU O NOT EFFECTIVE O MARGINAL EFFECTIVENESS 1. When Warranted on be effective 2. With Polim E~dorcement 1u36 • SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE OR VERY EFFECTIVE TABLE 1 POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES OPERATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MEASURE OR TECHNIQUE .~ Impam on ~~ aoadwar • r vshide rnpact cyd'st vd:od,r Pedestrian ; Nose .. Vim, I FuN rmd I, swp Sigm O O O • O '- • • • O Traff c S'~h O O O O O I vAa1Fs Speed Lrmrt Srgrls O O ! O O • ~ O O O O Turn Prohibitions • O O O O I O O O O Orso-Way Streets • • O O O ! O O O ~ O Access Regulation Q O O O O ~ O O O O Trnck Restrictions O O O O O i O O O O On Street Parkhlg Restrictioro O O O O O ! O O O O school zone Srgro O O I O O O ~ O O O O & Flashing Beacom O O I O O O ! O O O • Irlfomution s'Igrling Q O ' • • • '~ O O O O Crosswalk Paremmt Markings • O ! O O O j O O O O lane Redudiom (Painted) O O O ~ O O I O O O O Speed Humps • • • • ~ ! • O O • speed Bumps O • I• O O I • O O • Chokers/Road Narrowrrlgs O • • O O ': O O O O Tnf6c Circles/Buttoro O O O O • O O O O Median Barmen • • Q O O O O ~ O • Diverters • • O O O O ~ O O O Forced Turn Channel"Ration • O O O I O ! O O O O cnl~e-sao • • ~ O O ~ O O I O O O Breakaway Barriers • O O O ~ O O O O O Changeable Speed zones O O O O ~ O O O O O community Marketing O O ! O O O '. O ~ O O O Comprchemive Programs O O O ~ O O I O O O O Arterial lmprovemenls O O O O O O O O O LEGEND O NO IMPACT (OR POSITIVE IMPACn O MINIMAL IMPACT • SIGNIFKANT IMPAR TABLE 1 ~a3~ POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES COMMUNITY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT MEASURE OR TECHNIQUE truhllation ~ Mairrtenarice • Diffiarhy of Nei~bourfiood Aooess I weed For ~ Enforcement Stop Signs O O O • Traffic Signals • O O O Speed Limit Signs O O O • Turn Prohibitions O O O • One-Way Streets O Q • O Access Regulation • O O • Truck Restrictions O O O • On Street Parking Restrictions O • O • School Zone Signs O O O • & Flashing Beacons O O O O Information Signing O O O O Crosswalk Pavement Markings O O O O Lane Reductions (Painted) O O O O Speed Humps O • O O Speed Bumps O • ~ O O Chokers/Road Narrowings • O O O Traffic C.Ircles/Buttons • O O O Median Barriers O O ~ • O Diverters O O j • O Forced Turn Channelization O O I • • Cul-de-Sacs • O I • O, Breakaway Barriers O O ~ • O ,. Changeable Speed Zones O O O • Community Marketing O O ~ O O Comprehensive Programs O• O• • O Arteriallmprovements • O O LEGEND • HIGH O MEDIUM ~ LAW 1. After Initial Period Folbwing Implementation 1 l~ 3 ~ •TABLE 1 -~- 3. The speeding problem on Glenabbey Drive is not unique to this roadway nor is it more serious than on roadways in other parts of Clarington or the Region of Durham: The Municipality should exercise extreme caution when evaluating techniques to deal with this problem, i.e. whatever happens on Glenabbey Drive will set a precedent for other roadways within the community. 4. in terms of the profile of the offending speeders, it is apparent Gom observation and discussion with local residents that some of the speeders do not know that they are causing a problem for local residents and there are others who will have to be forced to conform to the prevailing speed limits and desired motoring etiquette. 5. On the surface, it appears that speeding should be a relatively straightforward issue to resolve; however, resolution of this problem is by no means simple and will require the complete co-operation of the local residents, Durham Regional Police and staff of the Municipality of Clarington while recognizing the financial and staffing limitations of all of the above organiistions. Staff of the Municipality of Clarington and the local residents must be aware of the potential impacts associated with resolving this problem. If the problem is not dealt with appropriately, the solutions could result in greater and more severe community and safety impacts. 6. As discussed in the body of the report, the speeding problem is a serious social issue and not a technical or an engineering design problem, although some changes to street and subdivision design should be considered in the future for new communities within the Municipality. As a consequence, the local residents must take some responsibility jor the solution. 7. Experience has shown that increased enforcement, better driver education and community based marketing programs are the only acceptable means aJejfecting speed rnntral on residential/colledorstreels. Specifically, speeding can oniy be resolved when the offenders feel that there is a chance that they will be identified through enforcement which can be enhanced and ultimately reduced through community based and operated marketing and education programs. The marketing and education programs could include such items as community newspaper articles which inform local residents of their community responsibilities. With respect to education, it is suggested that a program be initiated at the local school level in order to provide the students with an understanding of traffic and safety related issues and concerns within the community. Experience has shown that children often pass on such information to their pazents at home and while driving in the car. Durham Regional Police have been approached regazding the above programs and have expressed support for both the community wide mazketing program and education within the local school. Subject to review of the final program, Durham Regional Police are willing to commit staff and resources to participate in this exercise. 8. Successful resolution of the speeding issues within the community will likely be a function of the level of community participation that can be achieved through the mazketing and education programs combined with regular Police enforcement. 9. The residents may wish to wnsider implementation of a Neighbourhood Traffic or Speed Watch Program w]rich involves the monitoring of speeders/erratic drivers by local residents with follow-up by the Police. RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the above conclusions, the following recommendations are offered: 1. That physical, active, traffic cahning techniques such as road closures, stop signs and reduced speed limits not be considered for implementation on Glenabbey Drive. lU3y -g- 2. Staff of the Municipality should consult with Durham Region Police staff to finalize details relative to: A community marketing progam to be undertaken and managed by community residents; A monitoring and enforcement program to be undertaken by Municipality of Clarington staff in conjunction with Durham Region Police. The purpose of this progam would be to identify impacts resulting from schemes implemented in the community; The implementation of a Community Traffic or Speed Watch Program. This progam would involve the installation of signs along Glenabbey Drive indicating that erratic drivers or speeders are being "monitored". Residents would then have an opportunity to phone Durham Region Police to report. the license plates of erratic drivers or speeders. At the end of a specified period, the Police would assess the information received and determine which motorists should receive a letter from the Police or a personal visit. The Police would inform the vehicle owners of the fact that he/she has been identified as a speeder by local residents and would request safe driving practices and compliance with. traffic regulations. This type of a progam has been successfully implemented in Troy, Michigan and is currently being considered by the Region of York Police Department; and Implementation of an Education Progam in the local school. 3. Staff of the Municipality in conjunction with representatives of the Durham Region Police meet with local residents to present the results of this Study and to: Initiate the Community Marketing Program; and To discuss and receive wmments on the proposed Community Traffic or Speed Watch Progam. 4. That the Municipality of Clarington stafl; in wnjunction with staff of the Region of Durham, conduct a thorough review of subdivision design standards with a view to assessing existing standards and identifying any changes that may be required to reduce the possibility of future speed and volume issues in new residential areas. It is suggested that this review be undertaken in conjunction with representatives from the development industry. I trust that the above information is of assistance to you. I am available at your convenience to discuss the results of my review. Yours very truly, lingham, P. Eng. Vice-President, Transportation DIA/an 1436DA 1 u 4 l1 ~vurt ~ u:t 1u41 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Being a By-law to amend Hy-law 91-58 being a By-law to Regulate Traffic on Highways, Municipal and Private Property in the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of The Municipality of Clarington deems it desirable to amend By-law 91-56; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: BY-LAW 94- 1) Schedule XV 'THROUGH HIGHWAYS' of Hy-law 91-58 is amended by deleting the following reference: Column 1 Aiahwa~ Glenabbey Drive .(Courtice) Glenabbey Drive (Courtice) AND Column 2 From East limit of Towaline Road South East limit of Robert Adams Drive Column 3 To West limit of Robert Adams Drive West limit of Prestonvale Road 2) Schedule XVI 'STOP SIGNS' of By-law 91-58 is amended by adding the following reference: Column 1 Column 2 Intersections Facing Traffic Glenabbey Drive and Eastbound on Glenabbey. Drive Turnberry Crescent _ (Courtice Glenabbey Drive and Westbound on Glenabbey Drive Pinedale Crescent (Courtice) Glenabbey Drive and Eastbound on Glenabbey Drive Bruntsf field Street (Courtice Glenabbey Drive and Westbound on Glenabbey Drive Bruntsfield Street (Courtice) Glenabbey Drive and Eastbound on Glenabbey Drive Auburn Lane (Courtice) Glenabbey Drive and Westbound on Glenabbey Drive Auburn Lane , (Courtice) ATTACHMENT N0. 5 ADDENDUM N0. 1 TO WD-3-94 V`~L -z- 3) This By-law shall come into Force on the date that it is approved by the Council of The Regional Municipality of Durham and when signs to the effect are erected. BY-LAW read a first and second time this 28th day o£ November, 1994. HY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 28th day of November, 1994. MAYOR CLERK 104 lU